03/16/2016 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB172 | |
| SB163 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2016
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Mia Costello, Vice Chair
Senator John Coghill
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Bill Stoltze
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 172
"An Act relating to management of enhanced stocks of fish;
authorizing the operation of nonprofit shellfish hatcheries;
relating to application fees for salmon and shellfish hatchery
permits; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 172(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 163
"An Act relating to the nomination and designation of state
water as outstanding national resource water; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 172
SHORT TITLE: FISH/SHELLFISH HATCHERY/ENHANCE. PROJECTS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/05/16 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/16 (S) RES, FIN
02/22/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/22/16 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/04/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/04/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/04/16 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/11/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/11/16 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/16/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 163
SHORT TITLE: NATL. RES. WATER NOMINATION/DESIGNATION
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/29/16 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/29/16 (S) RES, FIN
02/15/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/15/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/16 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/07/16 (S) RES AT 4:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/07/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/07/16 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/14/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/16 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
AKIS GIALOPSOS, staff to Senator Giessel and the Senate
Resources Committee
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the changes in CSSB 172, version
\E and CSSB 163, version \H.
FORREST BOWERS, Deputy Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed appreciation for the changes in
CSSB 172.
CHRIS MIERZEJEK
Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association
(APICDA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 172, version \E.
HEATHER MCCARTY, Lobbyist
Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association (CBSFA),
Co-chair, Steering Committee
Alaska King Crab Research, Rehabilitation and Biology (AKCRRAB)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 172, version \E.
JEFF STEPHAN, United Fishermen's Marketing Association (UFMA)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 172, version \E.
GINNY ECKERT, Professor of Fisheries
University of Alaska Fairbanks at Lena Point
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 172, version \E.
JEFF HETRICK, Director
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery, Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 172, version \E.
JAMES AGULAR, owner
Eagle Shellfish Farm
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 172, version \E.
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director
Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 172, version \E.
ANGEL DROBNICA, Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development
Association (APICDA)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 172, version \E.
SAM RAYBUNG, Aquatic Director
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained concerns related to PSP in CSSB
172.
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 172, version \E and CSSB
163.
PENNY VADLA, representing herself
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 163.
RANDY JACKSON, representing himself
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 163.
GEORGE CAMPBELL, representing himself
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Enumerated problems with SB 163.
VERNER WILSON, Director
Natural Resources
Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA)
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 163.
KIM WILLIAMS, Executive Director
Nunamta Aulukestai
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested changes to SB 163.
SAM SNYDER, Trout Unlimited
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 163.
BRITTANY HOGAN, representing herself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 163.
ERIC BOOTON, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 163.
JED WHITTAKER, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 163.
HEIDI KRITZ
United Tribes of Bristol Bay
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 163 and its CS.
JAMES SULLIVAN, representing himself
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Tacitly supported SB 163, but urged
continued work on it.
DENNIS WATSON, Mayor
City of Craig
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Tentatively supported SB 163, but said it
needs more work.
MELANIE BROWN, representing herself
Naknek Native Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 163.
VICTORIA DEMMERT, President
Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, Yakutat, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 163.
GUY ARCHIBALD, Director
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 163.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:55 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Stedman, Costello, Stoltze, Coghill, and
Chair Giessel.
SB 172-FISH/SHELLFISH HATCHERY/ENHANCE. PROJECTS
3:31:31 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of SB 172 [version 29-
GS2653\A was before the committee].
SENATOR COSTELLO moved to adopt CSSB 172, version 29-GS2653\E.
CHAIR GIESSEL objected for discussion purposes and invited her
staff to explain the changes.
3:32:24 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee.
3:32:37 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
AKIS GIALOPSOS, staff to Senator Giessel and the Senate
Resources Committee, Juneau, Alaska, explained the changes in
the E version. Aside from four changes at the request of one
member of the committee, the remainder of the changes were at
the request of the department, he said.
The first change is a title change that reflects:
1. The title is changed to reflect the following changes:
"An Act relating to management of stocks of shellfish;
authorizing certain nonprofit organizations to engage in
shellfish stock rehabilitation efforts, carry out shellfish
enhancement projects, and operate shellfish hatcheries; relating
to application fees for salmon hatchery permits; and providing
for an effective date."
2. Page 2, Lines 13-14, inserts a new title for the new chapter
12: "Shellfish Stock Rehabilitation Efforts, Enhancement
Projects, and Hatcheries."
3. Page 2, Lines 15-19, reflect language changes to include
shellfish stock rehabilitation and enhancement projects in the
section; along with existing language that included hatcheries.
4. Page 2, Lines 22-24, changes the language by removing
"hatchery permit" and replacing it with "a permit issued under
this section." Also removes "a hatchery" and replaces it with "a
facility."
5. Page 2, Lines 28-30, restructures the wording of the
paragraph without substantive changes.
6. Page 3, Lines 6-10, restructures the wording of the
paragraph. Adds the terms proposed stock rehabilitation effort
and enhancement project (line 7) to the paragraph. Adds the
words "the capacity of the facility" (line 9) to the paragraph.
7. Page 3, Lines 15-16, removes the words "a hatchery operator"
and replaces them with "a permit issued under this chapter."
8. Page 3, Lines 17-20, restructures the wording of the
paragraphs without substantive changes.
3:35:16 PM
9. Page 3, Lines 21-22, adds a new paragraph prohibiting a
permit holder from procuring or placing genetically modified
shellfish into the water of the state. (From a committee member)
10. Page 3, Lines 23-31, restructures the wording of the
paragraphs without substantive changes.
11. Page 4, Lines 1-3, restructures the wording of the
paragraph. Removes the words "operators of other hatcheries,"
replacing them with "other permit holder."
12. Page 4, Lines 4-8, restructures the wording of the
paragraphs without substantive changes.
13. Page 4, Lines 21-22, removes the word "hatchery," replacing
it with "permit holder." Also replaces "AS 16.12.010-16.12.199"
with "this chapter." (Allegedly a bill drafting conformity.}
3:36:19 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE asked if there is another potential motive out
there.
MR. GIALOPSOS answered that he meant nothing by "allegedly."
14. Page 4, Line 25, removes the words "hatchery operator,"
replacing it with "permit holder."
15. Page 4, Line 29, replaces the words "hatchery operators"
with "permit holders."
16. Page 4, Line 31, replaces "AS 16.12.010-16.12.199" with
"this chapter."
17. Page 5, Lines 4-5, replaces "in the planning, construction,
or operation of shellfish hatcheries" with "as to stock
rehabilitation efforts, enhancement projects, or the planning,
construction, and operation of facilities."
18. Page 5, Line 7/Page 5, Line 8 replaces "AS 16.12.010-
16.12.199" with "this chapter."
19. Page 5, Lines 12-13, restructures the wording of the
paragraph. Removes the words "and then, upon department
approval, from other areas, as necessary." (From a committee
member)
20. Page 5, Line 15, replaces "shellfish hatchery operator" with
"permit holder."
21. Page 5, Line 16, replaces "another hatchery operating under
a permit issued under AS 16.12.010-16.12.199" with "another
permit holder under this chapter."
22. Page 5, Line 18-19, restructures the wording of the
paragraph without substantive changes.
23. Page 5, Lines 20-22, restructures the wording of the
paragraph without substantive changes.
24. Page 5, Lines 23-23, replaces "a hatchery permit holder may
harvest shellfish for a facility" with "a permit holder may
harvest shellfish for a stock rehabilitation effort, an
enhancement project, or a hatchery."
25. Page 5, Lines 30-31/Page 6, Lines 1-2 replaces "a hatchery
permit holder" with "a permit holder;" replaces "membership of
the hatchery permit holder's board" with "permit holders board;"
replaces "established for that facility through the common
property fishery" with "established for stock rehabilitation, an
enhancement project, or a hatchery through the common property
fishery."
26. Page 6, Line 11, replaces "hatchery" with "permit holder."
27. Page 6, Line 13, replaces "hatchery" with "permit holder."
28. Page 7, Line 4, replaces "hatchery permit holder" with
"permit holder."
29. Page 7, Line 8, replaces "shellfish hatchery" with "permit
holder's stock rehabilitation effort, enhancement project, or
hatchery."
30. Page 7, Lines 19-20, replaces "hatchery permit holder who
operates a facility" with "permit holder who is rehabilitating
stock, carrying out an enhancement project, or operating a
facility."
31. Page 7, Lines 30-31/Page 8, Line 1, removes the definition
of "facility" from subsection (g)."
32. Page 8, Line 3, replaces the title "Inspection of hatchery"
with "Inspection by the department."
33. Page 8, Lines 3-7, includes the terms stock rehabilitation
facility and enhancement project facility to be inspected along
with hatcheries by the Department of Fish and Game.
34. Page 8, Lines 8-9, restructures the wording of the paragraph
without substantive changes.
35. Page 8, Lines 10-19, reformats the paragraph to be
enumerated.
3:40:48 PM
36. Page 8, Line 19, removes the word "hatchery," inserts the
words "by the permit holder."
37. Page 8, Lines 25-26, inserts a definition of "facility."
NOTE: This definition is different than the one removed in
change 31.
38. Page 8, Lines 27-31, inserts a definition of "genetically
modified shellfish." (by a committee member)
39. Page 9, Line 4, the definition of "shellfish" is modified to
remove the words "or that is authorized to be imported into the
state under a permit issued by the commissioner." (From a
committee member)
40. Page 9, Lines 5-6, inserts a definition of "stock
rehabilitation."
41. Page 9, Lines 8-14, reformats Section 4(a) to constitute two
new paragraphs. Replaces "AS 16.12.010-16.12.199 for shellfish,"
with "(2) nonprofit organizations holding a permit under AS
16.12 for a shellfish stock rehabilitation effort, a shellfish
enhancement project, or a shellfish hatchery."
42. Page 10, Line 1, inserts the words "or other facility."
3:42:05 PM
43. Page 10, Lines 19-30, inserts a new Section 9 to comport
with the repeal and reenactment language of sec. 2, ch.55, SLA
2013, related to Section 8 (Page 10, Lines 4-18).
44. Page 11, Line 10, removes the words "may proceed to."
45. Page 11, Lines 15-16, inserts a new Section 14, instituting
an effective date for the new Section 9 (Page 10, Lines 19-30).
CHAIR GIESSEL asked Senator Wielechowski if he wished to speak
to any changes he had offered. He indicated no. She invited
department forward to give them their rationale.
3:43:41 PM
FORREST BOWERS, Deputy Director, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Juneau,
Alaska, said they appreciate the changes the committee made to
SB 172. The public seemed to be confused about the bill's focus.
The first draft focused on hatcheries, and these changes add a
definition of "stock rehabilitation and enhancement projects,"
which could be a component of an enhancement project, because
that is what the bill is supposed to be about, not hatcheries
exclusively.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if they checked to see if there were
any differing written opinions within the department about the
appropriateness of this legislation.
MR. BOWERS answered yes; they checked, but they didn't find any
written documentation of objections to SB 172. Some department
staff may not feel that hatcheries are an appropriate tool to
use in fisheries management, but it is statutorily authorized
and directed to use them. The department owns and operates two
hatcheries through the Division of Sport Fish and owns more.
3:46:14 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the department's concerns were
over cost or invasive species.
MR. BOWERS answered he hadn't heard any concerns related to this
bill directly, but as discussions about shellfish enhancement
and rehabilitation have developed over the years, they were
primarily related to how to manage enhanced shellfish stocks
under the current fisheries structure.
He explained that shellfish, crab specifically, can't be marked
the way salmon are marked, because of the biology of crab they
would mix with wild stocks in many cases.
CHAIR GIESSEL removed her objection and finding no further
objections, announced that work draft E was adopted. She
continued public testimony.
CHRIS MIERZEJEK, Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development
Association (APICDA), Anchorage, Alaska, supported SB 172. He
has been a resident of rural Alaska for 20 years and that APICDA
is one of the community development quota (CDQ) groups. SB 172
is a good start in creating a regulatory framework that will
provide communities with economic benefits to explore
mariculture activities.
3:50:39 PM
HEATHER MCCARTY, Lobbyist, Central Bering Sea Fishermen's
Association (CBSFA), Kodiak, Alaska, said she is also co-chair
of the Steering Committee for Alaska King Crab Research,
Rehabilitation and Biology (AKCRRAB). They support SB 172 as
well as the CS. The other AKCRRAB co-chair is Dr. Ginny Eckert,
who is a biologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks in
Juneau. She said that ABSFA has been involved with AKCRRAB for
seven or eight years as a coalition of industry and scientists
and agencies to develop techniques to raise king crab in
hatcheries for the purpose of rehabilitating Red King Crab in
the Kodiak area and Pribilof Island Blue King Crab in the Bering
Sea. They are doing it because other efforts to bring back
those stocks have not been successful.
3:53:01 PM
JEFF STEPHAN, United Fishermen's Marketing Association (UFMA),
Kodiak, Alaska, said he is also on the AKCRRAB Steering
Committee. He supported the changes in CSSB 172. He said the
original intention in forming this organization was to try to
add some money to ADF&G's effort to better understand and
promote research on crab and bring the University in a little
bit more. One objective was to develop some local graduate
students and try to keep them in Alaska that would be
knowledgeable about king crab biology. They have worked very
closely with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) for many years.
This initiative began back in 1996 with an international
symposium in Kodiak that included the countries of Norway,
Chile, Eastern Canada, Japan, and Argentina, that laid out how
to proceed with their research and enhancement activities. They
followed up about 10 years later with another international
conference that brought people in from Russia along with the
other countries he mentioned.
MR. STEPHAN said they absolutely support the standards,
customary genetic practices, and protective measures required by
the ADF&G. They do a very good job, and this bill allows these
studies to move forward in a little bit more of a formal manner.
3:56:46 PM
GINNY ECKERT, Professor of Fisheries, University of Alaska
Fairbanks at Lena Point, Juneau, Alaska, supported SB 172. She
is also the science director for the AKCRRAB program and is an
expert in shellfish ecology. She has been working in Alaska
since 2000 and on king crab rehabilitation since 2007. She
thanked the department and the committee for their efforts with
this bill.
Responding to the questions about the rationale for this work at
the last hearing, she said seven out of 10 red king crab stocks
are closed to fishing in Alaska and many have been closed since
the 1980s. There has been a clear lack of recovery for many
decades. Their evidence and research indicates that recruitment
is limited and these enhancement efforts may be successful.
These efforts could be very important to small coastal
communities, not only to rehabilitate commercial fisheries, but
also for sport and subsistence purposes.
MS. ECKERT said other shellfish species have explored
enhancement, but there is also need in the areas of sea
cucumbers and other mollusks. She was available to answer
questions about those as she is familiar with the efforts.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he is generally supportive of the
bill, but his only concern is about unintended impacts to the
ecosystem by placing new species with different genetic
compositions in it. He asked if she shared that concern.
MS. ECKERT replied yes. The bill states that the stocks to be
rehabilitated are ones that should be native stocks to the area,
and they definitely support that. It's very clear about not
bringing anything in from outside the state and definitely
nothing genetically modified. The work she has done to date has
only been conducted in areas where there are no natural stocks.
It is reasonable to be concerned about natural stocks.
She explained that they have also been working closely to ensure
that there is genetic diversity among the released animals. The
department regulates this activity.
4:00:31 PM
From a scientific perspective, she said king crabs, and
shellfish in general, are very different from salmon. It's very
likely that there is the idea that a certain number of animals
are going to thrive and a certain number aren't. They will do
their best to replicate that in hatchery environments and not
modify the genetic composition, but the reality is that through
overfishing and other processes the genetic composition is
changing anyhow. So there is an impact from recovering from
overfishing.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked her to what she attributes the crash
in red and blue king crab stocks.
MS. ECKERT answered that king crab are vulnerable to overfishing
and the historical fishing rates were really high. Also, quite a
few foreign fleets participated. A lot more is known now about
fishing rates. There are theories about trawling catching king
crab as bycatch, so it wasn't necessarily directed fisheries
that were leading to the crash. King crab aggregate together and
that makes them particularly vulnerable to overfishing - through
directed and undirected fishing, she added.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the bill ties the department's hands
from using adjacent stock where there was a complete regional
failure of a species that essentially has no stock remaining for
rehabilitation.
MS. ECKERT answered that the bill has language on "Brood stock
sources" on page 5, line 9 that says "(a) The department shall
approve the source and number of shellfish taken for use as
brood stock¼ (b) Where feasible, a permit holder shall first
take shellfish from stocks native to the area in which the
shellfish will be released."
She thought that language left the department open to be able to
look to the closest possible source and allows rehabilitation of
the stocks of the kind crab she is familiar with.
4:03:57 PM
JEFF HETRICK, Director, Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery,
Seward, Alaska, supported SB 172. He said the hatchery is
operated by the Chugach Regional Resources Commission. He said
he is also a member of AKCRRAB that is largely responsible for
this legislation. It is needed because for the last 15 years
they have been doing strictly experimental work under the
Fisheries Resource Permit and the Commission's permit. The
department has been very cooperative in allowing them to do some
of these projects. They have worked with developing the
technology for raising razor clams, cockles, butter clams, and
little neck clams, and do some small out-stocking experiments to
see how they grow - trying to figure out what the bottleneck is
for production.
He added that a lot of shellfish stocks are decimated as well as
the crab stocks and there is no commercial fishery on hard
clams. Most subsistence and personal use fisheries are declining
to the point where people don't bother doing it. These efforts
are not guaranteed to work, but this bill allows enhancement
projects on a larger scale that could make a difference. They
would go from stocking numbers of 5 or 10 thousand to a half
million.
MR. HETRICK said AKCRRAB has worked hand in hand with ADF&G for
years. It has very strict pathology and genetic requirements and
"provides more than adequate oversight." If this bill is passed
it will reduce the department's costs for managing these
projects. He has a notebook full of permits for last year, which
is four inches thick, because of the way the current Fisheries
Resource Permit Program is administered.
4:07:50 PM
JAMES AGULAR, owner, Eagle Shellfish Farm, Cordova, Alaska,
supported CSSB 172, version \E. It's a good starting point for
economic development in the coastal communities, he said, but he
has one problem with it: Section 7(c) the donations to food
banks. Mollusks are shellfish and sometimes have paralytic
shellfish poisoning (PSP), and this section allows giving
shellfish to anybody without it being tested by the DEC for any
toxin.
4:09:39 PM
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Alaska Fisheries Development
Foundation, Juneau, Alaska, supported CSSB 172. She said their
non-profit membership is comprised of fishermen, processors, and
support sector businesses, and it has been around since 1978.
Their mission is to identify common problems and opportunities
across the state in the seafood industry and help develop
solutions primarily using research and development. Their aim is
to balance economic opportunities with sustainability
principles.
She said that CSSB 172 plays a role in the development of
Mariculture in Alaska. Her organization has been spearheading a
project called the "Alaska Mariculture Initiative" to expedite
the development of mariculture in the state with the vision of
growing a billion dollar industry in 30 years.
This also reinforces the Governor's recent Administrative Order
(AO) that establishes the Alaska Mariculture Task Force with the
intent to recommend a comprehensive plan for going about this
development.
4:11:49 PM
MS. DECKER stated the SB 172 creates the regulatory framework
that will allow for this type of shellfish enhancement. She
pointed out that her organization is a client for different
sustainability certifications, both MSC and Alaska's RFM
program. In that role she very clearly understands the
importance of ADF&G's strict rules about hatcheries and their
management. It comes into play in the sustainability
certification process, and it's one of the things that actually
really protects the mariculture industry.
4:12:53 PM
ANGEL DROBNICA, Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development
Association (APICDA), Kodiak, Alaska, supported SB 172 and the
CS. Under the program the association is charged with increasing
fishing related economic development opportunities for their
members. Mariculture is a tremendous opportunity for western
Alaska, not only for business and revenue generation, but for
potentially increasing access to subsistence fisheries,
workforce development and training, and research to better
understand the impacts of climatic-related ocean changes, and
building resiliency in adapting to those changes.
She said APICDA is a member of Alaska Fisheries Development
Foundation, which spearheaded the Alaska Mariculture initiative,
and they have also been involved in the AKCRRAB program. The
coalition has achieved great success in achieving a better
understanding of the life history and ecology of red and blue
king crab. They hope this research will eventually lead to the
rehabilitation of depressed king crab stocks in Alaska and
result in restored commercial and subsistence harvest for the
fisheries-dependent communities in the Pribilof Islands.
MS. DROBNICA said SB 172 will fill a current gap that exists for
permitting and regulating restoration efforts and will provide a
very important framework for future mariculture development. SB
172 is consistent with the initiative and the governor's task
force.
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked her and finding no further comments,
closed public testimony on SB 172. She mentioned a suggested
amendment in Section 7 to address paralytic shellfish poison
(PSP).
4:16:04 PM
SAM RAYBUNG, Aquatic Director, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska, explained that the concern related
to PSP is new. This bill does not have a provision for testing
for PSP as all commercially-sold organisms are tested. It is an
oversight and he had no objection to putting it in.
SENATOR STOLTZE said he wanted to hear from the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) on that regulation.
4:17:40 PM
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), Anchorage, Alaska, said he needed to talk to
his food and safety people, but he thought they would want to
make sure the product is tested, because of the safety of the
people that would be consuming, but also the reputation of the
product. This comes up from time to time when people want to
donate food. He preferred to strike the language and work it
out.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the statute provides immunity from
liability if the shellfish is "apparently fit for human
consumption." He understands there is no way to tell whether PSP
is present in shellfish or not without testing.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that it sounds like the suggested
language may be broader than PSP concerns. Testing takes time to
accomplish; he didn't know a way of determining it in the field.
CHAIR GIESSEL commented that "fit for human consumption" is the
language before them, and they are exempt from having a DEC
permit. She asked if it was detrimental to remove the absolution
from liability.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said he would have to talk to his people and
get a full answer for her. His job is to protect the public, and
PSP is a high concern.
SENATOR MICCICHE said Section 7's only function is for providing
immunity. If they wanted to donate, they could first have a
sample tested and then donate afterwards. He supported removing
Section 7.
4:21:29 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO remarked that this section contemplates
removing the language that is underlined. But they could instead
remove the word "apparently" so that it would read "fit for
human consumption." That would then require anyone donating
shellfish to have it tested. Later in the bill it says the
department would be allowed to promulgate regulations. Her
suggestion does not affect the first part of the section,
because those individuals who are donating the salmon have a
permit.
CHAIR GIESSEL said if they removed Section 7 it only removes the
shellfish language. It leaves the statute in place for salmon.
SENATOR STOLTZE stated that the food banks requested the general
immunities provision decades ago, and not having that would
stifle the willingness to participate.
CHAIR GIESSEL reiterate that removing Section 7 only removes
shellfish.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked which types of shellfish they are
worried about. Are they worried about crab?
COMMISSIONER HARTIG responded that he would have to talk with
experts. More than one particular species can get PSP.
CHAIR GIESSEL recapped that a conceptual amendment was suggested
of striking Section 7, and ADF&G had no concern. DEC is
equivocal at this point simply because the experts aren't in the
room. Removing is not detrimental to the bill in terms of
hatcheries.
SENATOR MICCICHE added that it also returns the original
language. He moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to strike Section 7.
CHAIR GIESSEL added an additional conceptual amendment to
correct a drafting error on page 2, line 17, that would delete
"or a designee", because that phrase appears nowhere else in
this piece of legislation. All of the authority rests with the
commissioner.
CHAIR GIESSEL announce that without objection conceptual
Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
4:26:48 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO moved to report CSSB 172, version 29-GS2653\E,
as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached zero fiscal note. There were no objections and CSSB
172(RES) was reported from committee.
4:27:11 PM
At ease
SB 163-NATL. RES. WATER NOMINATION/DESIGNATION
4:28:43 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of SB 163.
SENATOR COSTELLO moved to adopt proposed CSSB 163, version 29-
GS2916\H, as the working document.
CHAIR GIESSEL objected for an explanation and invited her staff
to explain the changes.
4:30:10 PM
AKIS GIALOPSOS, staff to Senator Giessel and the Senate
Resources Committee, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
explained the changes in the CS. There are seven changes in
version \H as follows:
1. Page 1, Lines 7-9: Amends Section 1(a) by
prohibiting the Department of Environmental
Conservation from managing a water of the state as an
outstanding national resource water unless it has been
designated as an outstanding national resource water
by an act of the legislature.
2. Page 1, Lines 10-13: Amends Section 1(b) by
requiring a nomination to specifically and
geographically identify a water body, or portion of a
waterbody, for designation as an outstanding national
resource water.
3. Page 2, Lines 1-8: Amends Section 1(d) by requiring
the Department of Environmental Conservation to adopt
regulations establishing a process for submitting a
nomination for an outstanding national resources water
by providing public notice for all nominations,
providing notice to all property affected by the
designation, and creating a means for any resident of
the state to provide additional information about the
nomination.
4. Page 2, Lines 9-31/Page 3, Lines 1-2: Creates a new
Section 1(e), requiring the Department of
Environmental Conservation to transmit a nomination of
an outstanding national resource water to the
legislature if the department determined the nominated
water to be unique, important, or ecologically
sensitive; that the designation is necessary to
protect the water due to insufficient federal and
state protections; determined there is no other
available/effective method of protection. The
Department would need to determine whether the
nominated water had either been designated a wild or
scenic river; whether the water is either an ecosystem
or habitat for an endangered or threatened species;
whether the water is an ecosystem or habitat for an
outstanding recreational fishery; or whether the water
serves as the sole source of water for the use of
people. The Department would describe the potential
effects of a designation on endangered or threatened
species; recreational fisheries; and the water
supplies for the use of people.
5. Page 3, Lines 3-8: Amends the previous bill
version's Section 1(e) by reordering it to subsection
1(f), and adding a provision prohibiting the
Department of Environmental Conservation from
transmitting a substantially similar nomination to one
already transmitted within two years of the existing
nomination's original transmission.
6. Page 3, Lines 9-14: Adds a new Section 1(f),
requiring the Departments of Environmental
Conservation and Natural Resources to submit a report
to each body of the legislature every ten years,
beginning in 2017. The reports would describe each
body of water designated as an outstanding national
resource water and provide a recommendation regarding
the continuation of that designation.
7. Page 3, Line 21: Amends Section 3 by replacing the
word "may" with "shall," requiring the Department of
Environmental Conservation to adopt regulations
necessary for the implementation of the bill.
CHAIR GIESSEL removed her objection and said since Senators
Coghill and Stedman had suggested some of these changes she
would offer them the opportunity to comment.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that a 10-year review is totally
appropriate (referencing language on page 3, lines 9-14, Section
(g)). A lot of places in Alaska that have not been occupied will
change.
4:35:01 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said language on page 2, line 5, provides a
provision to require individual notification to property
owner(s), the reason being they are always taking away peoples'
property rights away and very rarely adding to them. When you
purchase property, you buy those rights, and he didn't think it
appropriate to take them away without proper notification and
due process.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the notice to known property
owners will include people who have ownership of rights-of-way
along a river or a couple hundred yards in from that, but may
take the water.
MR. GIALOPSOS answered that he understands Senator Stedman's
intent is to provide notice to each property owner whose
interests are affected by the designation that would have their
property directly impeded by the waterway. The DEC will
promulgate regulations that should clarify that issue.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for the DEC commissioner to come
back.
4:37:21 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if language on page 3, line 14, of the
10-year report is asking for a recommendation from the two
departments on the continuation of the designation, because that
implies that there is a process to un-designate. She wanted to
know if that is the intent, and if that is included in the lower
section of the bill where the department would write the
regulations.
MR. GIALOPSOS answered according to Legislative Legal because
this would be an act of the legislature, not a constitutional
act, and because one legislature cannot bind the hands of future
legislatures, it is understood that these departments could
recommend to un-designate in extreme circumstances, barring a
constitutional prohibition.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if there is further objection to the
committee substitute (CS). Finding none, she announced that
Version \H was before the committee. She invited Commissioner
Hartig forward and asked him to comment on the CS.
4:39:09 PM
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), Anchorage, Alaska, said the CS addresses a
number of issues and that it represents reaching "some middle
ground" to get more consensus. He is still concerned with some
ambiguous language that has already been mentioned.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if new language on page 1, lines 7-9,
means the department may not manage water of the state as
specified in 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 131.12 unless
it has been designated as an outstanding national water resource
(ONWR) under this section. That is essentially saying the DEC
may not manage the water as an ONWR, and there is a lot more to
anti-degradation than just the ONWR. Does this mean that DEC
can't apply anti-degradation to manage any water unless it is
specifically designated as an ONWR? It could be read two ways.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG agreed adding that that that CFR section
reference covers more than Tier 3 waters. It appears to also
deal with Tier 2 waters and perhaps Tier 1. This also might be
contrary to requirements of the Clean Water Act, but he would
have to get a legal opinion. He thought there were some
unintended consequences that need to be addressed.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if he would advocate when water is nominated
that it would immediately become under the jurisdiction of a
Tier 3 water without having any review.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG responded no; it's more subtle than that. It
says the department may not manage water of the state as
specified in 40 CFR 131.12, and that section also deals with how
Tier 2 waters are managed and maybe Tier 1. It's confusing.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if "tier water" only is designated as ONRW.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied only Tier 3 water.
CHAIR GIESSEL said she agreed that that language seemed to make
it a bit more specific.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG explained that the problem is with the
referral to all of 40 CFR 131.12 that deals with more than just
Tier 3 waters.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he had any recommended language.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered that he could come up with some
other language.
4:43:50 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what if you had to take the river to
get to your property and had to hike in a few hundred yards in
reference to language on page 2, lines 5-6. How would it be
determined that a property is affected, because clearly someone
whose land abutted water would be affected?
COMMISSIONER HARTIG agreed with all the discussion he had heard
already about noticing anyone affected before anything happens,
but in practice it might not be easy to execute, because of
ambiguity and costs. For instance, it says to "each known
property owner," for which he thought the intent was "real
property owner." Also, "whose interest is affected" would be a
tough determination to make, because each person's circumstances
would have to be considered. Something definitive would have to
be crafted. Perhaps they could provide the same notice the
department does to the general public for a rule making
broadcast, and a more targeted approach for directly affected
owners.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if he wants that language in statute rather
than regulation.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said he wants some guidance in statute, but
the details could be worked out in regulations.
4:47:22 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he thought the 40 CFR 131.12 reference
issue could be fixed by referencing subsections (a)(3),
specifically. Then the designation hasn't happen, but the reason
to designate is in what is called Tier 3 section.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if he was on page 1, line 8.
SENATOR COGHILL answered yes.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said he guessed that would be the direction
to go, but he would have to talk to the attorneys about it.
4:49:36 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said language on page 2, lines 16-17, talks
about the department transmitting an ONRW nomination only if,
and a number of things are listed, and asked if number 3 -
determines that there is no other available or effective method
of protecting the water - and asked if that is a costly
analysis.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG agreed that it would be and added that his
concern generally was how to pay for this, because there is no
mechanism currently. He is looking at four nominations right
now, and if they start acting on those and he to have them ready
by the start of next session, he would have "to get real busy."
There is the whole Bristol Bay watershed, all of the Yakutat
forelands, the Chilkat River, and the Koktuli River.
The concept about an alternative short of a Tier 3 is a
legitimate area of inquiry, he said, but he was a bit concerned
with "determines that there is no other available or effective
method for protecting the water," because that would never be
the case. There is always something else, like declaring a park.
CHAIR GIESSEL said the fiscal issue is a fundamental question.
The Governor has asked that the legislature make this
determination, but public comment indicates that they are
considered a political body and not a scientific one. So,
regardless of who is doing this, scientific information would be
needed. One member suggested having a fee attached to a
nomination.
4:52:46 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG agreed about the science and other relevant
facts to the criteria like recreational and ecological values
would be needed.
4:53:18 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE disclosed that his property has a couple hundred
feet of river front. He asked what the legislature could do to
help him "keep on this high ground that I believe you started
on."
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said he believes the legislature should make
the ultimate decision; it would take a lot to convince him
otherwise. He would want to assure that the legislature has the
science and public weigh-in when it gets the package to make a
decision efficiently.
4:59:33 PM
At ease
5:00:13 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the meeting back to order and began taking
public comment on the CSSB 163, version 29-GS2916\H.
5:01:02 PM
PENNY VADLA, representing herself, Soldotna, Alaska, opposed SB
163. The legislature should not be making this designation about
our waters, but the DEC should do it based on scientific
information.
5:03:41 PM
RANDY JACKSON, representing himself, Haines, Alaska, opposed SB
163. The bill is not ready to be moved forward as it doesn't
have much local support. He said the bill should have specific
language saying the ADF&G advisory committees should have a say
in the nominations, maybe through a letter of recommendation.
How to pay for this has been brought up a number of times,
because the department can't pay for its projects now.
5:07:00 PM
GEORGE CAMPBELL, representing himself, Haines, Alaska,
enumerated problems with SB 163. In looking at case law, the
Tier 3 designation is important throughout the country, because
of its restrictions. What about the people on the tributaries
when their lifestyle must change because of this designation?
There is already confusion about parks and subsistence and
overlapping federal and state regulations.
5:10:01 PM
VERNER WILSON, Director, Natural Resources, Bristol Bay Native
Association (BBNA), Dillingham, Alaska, opposed SB 163. He said
a decision like this should be based on science. In Bristol Bay
the bill would place the burden on them to obtain additional
protections on their clean waters that many people in the region
depend on. They would have to spend tight resources to convince
legislators from other regions in Alaska to place protections on
lands and waters in their own region.
He said the BBNA supports additional protections for their
waters and have passed numerous resolutions to that effect.
Clean waters are the basis for their cultural wellbeing and
putting food on the table.
5:12:15 PM
KIM WILLIAMS, Executive Director, Nunamta Aulukestai,
Dillingham, Alaska, suggested changes to SB 163. She said they
are one of seven petitioners for the nomination of Koktuli River
to be an ONRW. She said they are a 502(c)(3) non-profit and
their mission is to protect the land, water, and air that will
sustain their way of life for all generations. They advocate on
behalf of more than 6,000 tribal and village corporation members
in the Bristol Bay region.
She thanked the chair for keeping SB 163 in committee for
further work. One of her problems was with "only if" language on
page 2, line 10. Their interpretation is that the legislature
will never see ONRW because it has to meet the criteria on page
2 (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). She wanted to know who determines
"unique, ecological sensitive or important." She was also
concerned that current state and federal protections are not
sufficient and DEC will never find that current state and
federal protections are not there.
Additionally, on page 3 "recreational fishery" should include
the recognition of subsistence fisheries. People in rural Alaska
rely on subsistence and it's important to recognize not only
recreational, but subsistence. One other problem is on the last
page with the intent that it has to come before the legislature
within 10 days and what happens if "no action or action is
taken" needs to be defined.
She reminded them that Tier 3 is about prohibiting the lowering
of water quality and the reason they made their Koktuli
submission is to not lower the water quality because of
competing uses. Please keep this bill in committee until these
issues are worked out.
5:14:38 PM
SAM SNYDER, Trout Unlimited, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed SB 163.
He said clean water is a critical component of the health of our
fisheries and subsequently the businesses and interests they
work with. Trout Unlimited with other businesses and tribes
applied for ONRW status on the Koktuli River in 2012, because it
sits at the head waters of Alaska's largest commercial sockeye
fishery and home of Alaska's "legendary sport fishing rivers,"
which draw anglers, hunters and outdoor recreationists from
around the world.
This bill raises three concerns:
1. It places ownership of the resources that are to be managed
at the best interest of all Alaskan into the hands of
politicians.
2. It creates hurdles for securing ONRW designations that favor
Alaskans and opening the door for the influence of other
companies and lobbying interests.
3. Granting ONRW designation also creates a clear imbalance
between managing Alaska's important resource for the benefit of
Alaskans. This process should be clean, transparent and based on
science.
MR. SNYDER said SB 163 creates a more cumbersome process that
discourages public involvement and raises the costs associated
with proving the status, he concluded.
5:17:51 PM
BRITTANY HOGAN, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed
SB 163. Outdoor recreation is one of the reasons she chooses to
live Alaska and she finds great joy in being able to experience
excellent trout and salmon fishing basically outside of her
front door. It is exciting that Alaska has waters worthy of ONRW
designation and it is clear they need to be protected. An ONRW
designation is best carried out through the sound science of the
DEC, not legislators in Juneau, she said.
ERIC BOOTON, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed SB
163. He moved to Alaska from Colorado after graduating from
college, because it is such a pristine state and truly a dream
come true. Alaska is known world-wide as one of the greatest
sportfishing destinations, because of its intact ecosystems that
allow salmon and trout to thrive. Water quality is a critical
component of the health of our fisheries.
MR. BOOTON said he and many of his fellow anglers have serious
concerns about changing the responsibility for ruling making for
ONRW from DEC to the legislature. That would put Alaska's
resources in a game of political football while lobbyists are
guaranteed to win over concerns of Alaska citizens, as
amendments from the Alaska Miners' Association clearly
demonstrate. He suggested leaving management of these resources
and the determination of ONRW to the scientific experts at DEC.
DEC is more accountable and consistent with these kinds of
decisions.
5:21:11 PM
JED WHITTAKER, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed
SB 163. He said, "We share Mother Earth. We share the air we
breathe. We share the water." But SB 163 makes him feel like he
lives in Flint, Michigan, because of their contaminated water
issue.
5:23:43 PM
HEIDI KRITZ, United Tribes of Bristol Bay, Juneau, Alaska,
opposed SB 163 and its CS. She said the tribes in Bristol Bay
are over 80 percent of its population. The tribal members still
depend on a traditional subsistence way of life and they hope to
continue to thrive in this region for years to come.
MS. KRITZ said they have serious concerns about the process in
all the versions of the bill. The previous bill lacked any
provisions about a process by which the water designations would
be made and left those decisions to the legislature. The
proposed amendments, however, seem entirely concerned with the
outcomes, more specifically avoiding a specific kind of outcome,
a Tier 3 water designation. These amendments would put in place
criteria so burdensome and cost prohibitive that they would
essentially prevent an ONRW designation from ever being applied
to any Alaska water body. Further, if DEC had the funds to
conduct the review as described in the bill, it could take
years, and the ultimate decision on any such designation would
still belong to the legislature. The tribes do not support
politicizing the determination of an ONRW. The decision should
be based on science.
JAMES SULLIVAN, representing himself, Douglas, Alaska, tacitly
supported SB 163. He supports any effort that is open and
transparent. He urged them to keep working on the bill.
5:29:22 PM
DENNIS WATSON, Mayor, City of Craig, Juneau, Alaska, tentatively
supported SB 163, but said it needs more work. Tier 3 appears to
be a wilderness type designation and prohibits a lot of things.
It could be an end run by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) around Congress.
5:30:53 PM
MELANIE BROWN, representing herself, Naknek Native Council,
Juneau, Alaska, said she is a member of United Fishermen of
Alaska (UFA) and is a fourth-generation commercial permit holder
in Bristol Bay. She is affiliated with the water body known as
the Naknek River through her grandparents and ancestors. She and
her children are supported not only economically through the
commercial fishery, but she believes they exist because of the
water and what it supports.
MS. BROWN said a lot of people are treating the Tier 3 water
designation as something that would limit resource use and
development, when the water, itself, is a resource.
5:33:31 PM
VICTORIA DEMMERT, President, Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, Yakutat,
Alaska, opposed SB 163. She is a commercial setnet fisherman and
a subsistence user and lifelong Yakutat member. Their concern is
that there be a Tier 3, because they want clean water that can't
be degraded. "There have to be places in this world where these
things exist¼ The water is life to us."
She had concerns about some of the barriers she sees, like who
is going to do it, but she didn't want "the whole business of
the Tier 3 to be lost....Alaska needs it as a state." She
thought the DEC would be best for processing the designations.
5:36:37 PM
GUY ARCHIBALD, Director, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
(SEACC), Juneau, Alaska, opposed SB 163. He said he is also the
director of the Inside Passage Waterkeeper that is affiliated
with the National Waterkeeper Alliance. He gets the impression
that a Tier 3 designation is a very onerous thing to landowners.
But people need to remember that the only thing a Tier 3
designation does is prevent permanent long-term or permanent
degradation of water quality. Any activity on that water that
does not create permanent degradation is allowed, like boating
and fishing. Many states have gone through this process.
If there is an existing permitted waste water discharge into a
water body and it is designated a Tier 3, those discharges are
grandfathered in. Also, temporary degradation is allowed for
construction: there are exemptions for river restoration and
flood control. "It's not going to stop industry," he said. But
an industry seeking to discharge into a Tier 3 water would have
to treat its water to the water quality criteria that exists in
the water body. They would no longer be allowed to externalize
the cost of doing business onto the public trust, but could seek
alternatives to waste water discharge like land application.
They could do deep well injection like the oil and gas industry
does or recycle the water like the Pogo Mine does very
successfully and profitably.
"It is not a red-letter nail in the coffin of industry as it
seems to be portrayed," Mr. Archibald concluded. Colorado has
over 6,000 miles of Tier 3 waters and New Mexico has 2,000 miles
and 29 lakes. Those states have active extractive resource
businesses and their economies are doing well. "It needs to be a
DEC process," he concluded.
CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further comments, thanked everyone and
closed public testimony and held SB 163 in committee.
5:39:36 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 5:39 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB172-Version E.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Explanation of Changes-Version E.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172 ver A.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172 Sponsor Statement - Governor's Transmittal letter.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-DFG-CF-2-5-16.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB163-Version H.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163-Explanation of Changes-Version H.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163 ver A.PDF |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163 Fiscal Note DEC-WQ-12-30-15.PDF |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163 Fiscal Note-DNR-MLR-02-15-2016.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163-Comments-Bristol Bay Businesses.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB 163-Comments-Sealaska Corporation.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| CS SB163- Nunamta Aulukestai comments-3-16-16.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163-Various Written Comments.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |